Jivan Kumar vs Nandkishore Gupta
2023 Latest Caselaw 6016 MP

                                                         SA NO.614/2012

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR

                              BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

                         ON THE 13th OF APRIL, 2023

                       SECOND APPEAL No. 614 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

1.             JIVAN KUMAR S/O RAMPRASAD, AGED
               ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O TILAK WARD
               NARGHAIYA THANA KOTWALI , DISTT.
               JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.             SMT. MEENA KUMAR W/O JIVAN
               KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, TILAK
               WARD, NARGHAIYA, PS KOTWALI,
               DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....APPELLANTS

    (BY SHRI SUSHEEL TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE)

AND

       1.      NANDKISHORE      GUPTA      (DEAD)
               THR. LRs:

       (i)     SMT ALKA @ PINKI GUPTA W/O
               NANDKISHOR      GUPTA,    AGED
               ABOUT 40 YEARS, 301 TILAK WARD
               NARGHAIYA THANA KOTWALI
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

1
                                                                                 SA NO.614/2012

       (ii)    KU PRIYA GUPTA D/O NANDKISHORE
               GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 301
               TILAK WARD NARGHAIYA THANA
               KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)

       (iii)   PRASHANT        GUPTA       S/O
               NANDKISHORE     GUPTA,    AGED
               ABOUT 20 YEARS, 301 TILAK WARD
               NARGHAIYA THANA KOTWALI
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

       (iv)    SMT    KAUSHALYA   GUPTA W/O
               KANDHILAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 70
               YEARS,    301   TILAK    WARD
               NARGHAIYA     THANA   KOTWALI
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI R.P. KHARE-ADVOCATE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:

                                      JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants/tenants

challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2012 passed by 12 th

Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in civil appeal No.32-A/2010 affirming

the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 passed by 11 th Civil Judge Class-

SA NO.614/2012

II, Jabalpur in civil suit No.176-A/2008, whereby original

respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)

(c)&(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act')

has been decreed.

2. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 24.09.2012 on

the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether two Courts below were justified in granting the decree

under Section 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act

while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent ?

2. Whether two Courts below were justified to decree the suit under

Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the

ground of bona fide need and the finding so recorded is not

perverse ?

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that defendants

are not tenants of the original plaintiff - Nand Kishore Gupta (since died,

now LRs), but they were inducted as tenants by previous landlord and owner

of the suit property namely Ashok Gupta and Ram Manohar Gupta and the

defendants are their tenants on rent of Rs.125/- per month. He further submits

SA NO.614/2012

that on the basis of sale deed dated 11.02.2005 (Ex.P/1) no notice was issued

by the plaintiff in respect of purchase of the suit property from previous

owner/landlord Ashok Gupta and Ram Manohar Gupta, as such the

defendants were not aware about the transaction of sale in between the

plaintiff and the previous owner/landlord, and without considering this

aspect, learned courts below have decreed the suit on the ground of denial of

title under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, whereas in the light of decisions of the

Supreme Court in the case of C. Chandramohan vs. Sengottaiyan (Dead) by

LRs. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 568 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Girraj Kishore vs. Kamla Bai 2001 (1) MPHT 286, decree of eviction

on the ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act cannot be passed.

4. He further submits that the plaintiff has permitted his brothers to reside

in the suit accommodation, whereas they are not members of the family, as

has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, and if the plaintiff was in

need of the tenanted accommodation, he was free to get vacated part of the

suit property from his brothers, because they are neither members of the

family nor are dependent on the plaintiff. With these submissions, he prays

for allowing the second appeal.

SA NO.614/2012

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlord supports the

impugned judgment and decree and prays for dismissal of the second appeal,

with the submissions that although after purchase of the property, no notice

was issued to the defendants, but the finding in relation of denial of title and

bonafide requirement are pure findings of facts and are not liable to be

interfered with in the limited scope of Section 100 of C.P.C.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Substantial question of law no.1

7. Undisputedly, the defendants are tenants of previous landlord and

owner of the suit property namely Ashok Gupta and Ram Manohar Gupta,

from whom the plaintiff has purchased the tenanted house vide registered

sale deed dated 11.02.2005 (Ex.P/1), therefore, by operation of law the

defendants have become tenants of the plaintiff automatically and it cannot

be said that they are not tenants of the plaintiff. However, in presence of the

undisputed fact that after purchase of the tenanted/suit property by the

plaintiff, no notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendants, it cannot be

said that the defendants automatically became aware of transfer of ownership

in favour of the plaintiff. It is well settled that the defendant/tenant is having

SA NO.614/2012

right to challenge derivative title, certainly if he has not paid rent to the

transferee landlord, which has not been paid in the present case. As such, in

the backdrop of the aforesaid admitted fact learned courts below have on the

basis of oral testimony of previous landlord to the effect that he had informed

to the tenants about transfer of property, erred in passing decree of eviction

on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Resultantly, the substantial

question of law no.1 is decided in favour of the appellants/tenants and against

the plaintiff/landlord.

Substantial question of law no.2

8. So far as the decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement

of residence under section 12(1)(e) of the Act is concerned, there is no

material available on record to the effect that the plaintiff is in possession of

any vacant accommodation in the township of Jabalpur but it is apparent

from the record that previously father of the plaintiff was tenant in the suit

accommodation and he was residing along with his family members and

being in occupation as tenant, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property

vide registered sale deed, and in two rooms of first floor the defendants are in

occupation as tenants, therefore, it cannot be said that just with a view to

create a ground of eviction, the plaintiff has given part of the suit house to

SA NO.614/2012

his brothers, therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the

appellants/tenants, there is no question of first getting vacated part of the suit

property by plaintiff from his brothers, instead of filing suit for eviction

against the defendants/tenants. As such, the argument advanced in this regard

by learned counsel for appellants/tenants, is hereby rejected.

9. Learned courts below have after due consideration and appreciation of

oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is in need of the

tenanted accommodation for residence for himself and his family members.

After perusal of entire record, the findings on the question of bonafide

requirement do not appear to be perverse or illegal and are not liable to be

interfered with.

10. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ

375 coordinate bench this of Court has relied upon the decision of Supreme

Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and

Company AIR 2000 SC 534, and held that the findings recorded on the

question of bonafide requirement do not give rise to any substantial question

of law.

SA NO.614/2012

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered opinion the

substantial question of law No.2 does not arise in the present case.

12. It is well settled that the decree of eviction passed even on a single

ground, is executable, therefore, even after decision of substantial question of

law no. 1 in favour of the defendants/appellants, the impugned judgment and

decree of eviction is hereby affirmed.

13. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However,

no order as to costs.

14. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE

ss

Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 2023.04.18 16:24:56 +05'30'